oF inTErnaTionaL MigraTion FroM UKrainE, MoLDoVa anD bELarUs To VisEgraD CoUnTriEs anD THE EUroPEan Union – THE DELPHi METHoD (THE sEarCH For “sUbJECTiVE obJECTiViTY”)
Dušan Drbohlav, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Depart-ment of Social Geography and Regional DevelopDepart-ment, Geographic Migration Centre – GEOMIGRACE, Czechia
Marta Jaroszewicz, Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW), Poland
introduction
Research goals, questions and design
The aim of this chapter is to present the general results of the Delphi survey on migration trends between EU/V4 and Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Belarus, Mol-dova) conducted for the needs of the IVF, OSW-financed project “Forecasting mi-gration between the EU, V4 and Eastern Europe: the impact of visa abolition”.
As a result of applying two-round in-depth questionnaires, the expert consen-sus of opinions on current and future migration trends between the EU/V4 and Eastern Europe, their determinants, and the links between short-term visa abo-lition and migration have been obtained. The main research subjects included:
•
qualitative and quantitative assessment of Ukrainian, Moldovan and Bela-rusian migrant stock3 in V4/EU,•
evolution of migration trends of Eastern Europeans within the next 10 years, main demographic and economic characteristics of Ukrainian, Belarusian and Moldovan migrants in the EU,•
impact of visa-regime abolition (for short-term stays) for future emigration to the EU, and hypothetical impact of lifting labour market restrictions by the EU MS towards Ukrainian, Moldovan and Belarusian nationals,3 The number of people residing in a particular destination country at a given moment.
PRACE OSW 09/2012OSW REPORT 07/2014
•
strategic policy measures which should be applied by the EU, V4 states and Eastern European partners to make migration more beneficial for all the actors involved.Between October 2013 and March 2014 under the Delphi expert panel we surveyed 118 migration experts from seven states (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Bela-rus, Ukraine, and Moldova). The first round was performed in November-January 2013 and the second one in January-March 2014. Altogether 192 migration experts with different professional backgrounds but with high migration expertise were approached, out of which 118 took part in the first round (66 in V4 states and 52 in EaP states) and 106 in the second round (59 in V4 states and 47 in EaP states). They represented four categories: the governmental sector, scientific/research insti-tutes, NGOs and international organizations in more or less similar proportions.
However, the representatives of international organisations together with NGO workers dealing with migrants were the least numerous.
Within the first round at least 15 respondents in each country participated as a minimum. The overall number declined in the second round. Although this decline was not dramatic, in some cases and concerning particular questions the number of respondents fell below 10. In any case, it is still sufficient in our opin-ion since the Delphi panel should optimally comprise between 5 and 20 experts4. In both rounds two questionnaires were prepared: one for Visegrad states and one for Eastern Partnership states. The questionnaires were constructed so as to be complementary to each other and to show immigration trends in the case of V4 states and emigration ones in the case of EaP states. However, due to meth-odological concerns, the results obtained cannot be compared with each other. It can be done only in the case of several questions which were identical. The ques-tionnaires contained features characterising both the so-called conventional Del-phi (results on migration trends showed in statistical form) and the policy DelDel-phi (results on the desirability and feasibility of certain policy measures).
Due to space limitations within this chapter, we provide only the basic re-sults that indicate the broader regional context. However, more detailed
4 J. Bijak, A. Wiśniowski, Forecasting of immigration flows until 2025 for selected European coun-tries using expert information, Idea Working Paper, No. 7, May 2009; G. Rowe, G. Wright, Ex-perts Opinions in Forecasting: The Role of the Delphi Technique, (in:) J.S. Armstrong (ed.), Prin-ciples of Forecasting: A Handbook of Researchers and Practitioners, Boston 2001: Kluwer Academic Publications, pp. 125-144.
PRACE OSW 09/2012OSW REPORT 07/2014
interpretation can be found in the subsequent country chapters. Our research is of a qualitative character. We asked the respondents for some quantitative assessment but with the full consciousness that the results obtained may only indicate certain trends, not detailed estimates.
The research was carried out at a time when a serious conflict between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea and the eastern part of Ukraine took place. This fact, despite having so far a rather limited effect upon the migratory movements studied in our survey, did disrupt the research as such, especially in Ukraine.
Secondly, in April 2014, in the course of project’s implementation EU lifted short-term visas for Moldovan citizens. Therefore the visa related results ob-tained for Moldova should be treated as possible outcomes of real, not hypo-thetical, occurrences. Moreover, in May 2014, the EU Commission decided that Ukraine fulfilled the benchmarks of the first phase of the Visa Liberalisation Action Plan (VLAP) and suggested that Ukraine moves to the second chase of VLAP implementation.
In this chapter we use basic statistical terms, namely, AM – arithmetic mean (average results) and SD – standard deviation (how much variation from the average exists); N – reflects the number of respondents.
Methodology
The Delphi method can be described as a technique for collecting expert opin-ions through a series of distributed questionnaires interspersed with con-trolled opinion feedback for individual rounds of the study5. The method was developed from brain-storming and belongs to interactive research techniques, also called “research as a public dialogue”. In contrast to brain-storming, how-ever, Delphi attempts to reduce some of the disadvantages and shortcomings from which the brain-storming process might suffer6. It seems that the method is appropriate to use if the complexity of a research problem comes into play, when there is a lack of adequate data and where design of common future sce-narios is required.
5 H. Linstone, M. Turoff (eds.), The Delphi Method - Techniques and Applications, Reading 1975:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company; J.P. Martino, Technological Forecasting for Decision-making, New York 1972: American Elsevier Publishing Company.
6 D. Drbohlav, Migration Policy Objectives for European East-West International Migration, Inter-national Migration 1997, 35, pp. 85-108.
PRACE OSW 09/2012OSW REPORT 07/2014 The main characteristic feature of the Delphi method is establishing a panel of experts with a broad range of experience who are able and willing to par-ticipate in the survey. Second, it includes multiple rounds of the questionnaire with feedback from the preceding rounds, which allows the panellists to con-front any dissenting opinions and also to change their opinion. Third, the ano-nymity of the experts, and absence of direct contacts among the Delphi group is expected.
What also has to be mentioned, however, is that the Delphi method must not be considered as a completely defined and described instrument with a certain technical mode of execution. The various Delphi studies can differ consider-ably and may have little in common. The Delphi method originated in the USA at the beginning of the 1950s and at the beggining chiefly found application in the military sphere. Now, one can find Delphi applied to research into such complex societal problems as, for example, health, transportation, education, housing, or the environment.
Though international migration issues seem to be a suitable topic to be ana-lysed via the Delphi method (an innovative cognitive tool for international mi-gration research), it has so far rarely been used within the field of mimi-gration.
Nevertheless, there are some studies that apply Delphi to international migra-tion issues7. However, to our best knowledge, such an approach has never been applied in the investigation of migration issues in former post-Soviet countries.
Main results for Visegrad states
What are your current estimates for the number of migrants from Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova in your country, separately for each nationality mentioned (including irregularly staying ones)? Given that you now know the opinions of other experts, please place your estimates once more in each respective row. If you feel it is impor-tant – particularly if your opinion significantly deviates from the average – please provide arguments to justify your view.
7 S. Lovelless et al, Immigration and Its Impact on American Cities, Wesport 1996: Praeger Pub-lisher; D. Drbohlav, Migration policy..., 1997, op. cit.; L. Lachmanová, D. Drbohlav, The Probable Future Development of European East-West Migration (Delphi Method Revived), European Spa-tial Research and Policy 2004, vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 135-155; M. Jandl, Ch. Hollomey, A. Stepien, Mi-gration and Irregular Work in Austria: Results of a Delphi-Study, International MiMi-gration Paper 90, International Centre for Migration Policy Development, 2007 Geneva; J. Bijak, A. Wiśniowski, Forecasting..., op. cit.
PRACE OSW 09/2012OSW REPORT 07/2014
Table 1. Number of migrants from Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova in V4 states
cZechia hUngarY sLoVaKia poLand
aM sd n aM sd n aM sd n aM sd n
nationals
first round first round first round first round Ukrainians 135,000 51,000 13 19,000 13,000 11 19,000 23,000 15 252,500 165,000 10 belarusians 6,000 4,000 14 1,000 1,000 12 1,000 1,000 12 75,667 160,000 9 moldovans 7,000 4,000 13 1 000 1 000 12 3,000 5,000 12 4,844 4,000 8 seCond round seCond round seCond round seCond round Ukrainians 118,000 28,000 14 18,000 6,000 11 16,000 10,000 14 242,000 67,000 15 belarusians 5,000 2,000 15 1,000 0 (300) 11 1,000 2,000 13 58,182 31,000 11 moldovans 6,000 2,000 14 1 000 0 (200) 11 2,000 1,000 13 4,388 1,000 13
Respondents in all the respective Visegrad countries stated that Ukrainian migrants predominate over Belarusians and Moldovans. Whereas in Poland the experts indicated around 240,000 Ukrainian migrants, Czech respond-ents estimated about 112,000 Ukrainians. In Hungary and Slovakia the num-ber of Ukrainians is much lower. The numnum-ber of Belarusians and Moldovans was, with the exception of Poland, estimated equal to or less than 6,000 in all the countries. It should be borne in mind that if Poland is the main EU destination for Belarusians, none of the V4 states constitute the main des-tination for Moldovan migrants. The question did not differentiate between temporary, short-term and, on the other hand, long-term or permanent mi-grants. When estimating the given numbers, respondents revealed that they mainly relied on existing statistics and estimates of irregular migrants. This information was often accompanied with respondents’ own expert views and experience.
What, in your opinion, is the current proportion of irregular immigrants (either ille-gally staying or performing undeclared work) in the stock of migrants from Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova in your country? Put your estimate in percentages (one figure) separately for each nationality. Given that you now know the opinions of other ex-perts, please place your estimates once more in each respective row. If you feel it is im-portant – particularly if your opinion significantly deviates from the average – please provide arguments to justify your view.
PRACE OSW 09/2012OSW REPORT 07/2014 Table 2. Proportion of irregular immigrants in the stock of migrants from
Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova in V4 states
cZechia (%) hUngarY (%) sLoVaKia (%) poLand (%)
aM sd n aM sd n aM sd n aM sd n
nationals
first round first round first round first round
Ukrainians 35 35 13 24 22 9 33 19 14 43 24 9
belarusians 14 12 14 11 6 8 19 27 11 27 23 9
moldovans 26 37 13 20 16 8 30 29 12 31 26 7
seCond round seCond round seCond round seCond round
Ukrainians 24 12 12 17 7 10 33 12 14 45 17 15
belarusians 12 6 13 12 5 10 15 13 13 26 10 12
moldovans 19 1 12 14 7 10 28 23 13 29 11 13
Once again in this case, Ukrainians are the migrant group which typically constituted the highest shares of estimated irregular migrants in all the re-spective V4 countries. Their highest share was observed in Poland (45%), in Slovakia (33%), in Czechia (24%), while the lowest was in Hungary (17%). The overall magnitude of the estimates given by the respondents in all countries is rather low. This may be due to several factors. Firstly, it may be due to the relatively liberal EU visa policy which in the majority of cases allows Eastern European migrants to easily enter V4 states. Moreover, certain legal means by which Ukrainian, Moldovan and Belarusian nationals legalise their stay in all V4 states do exist, even though the migration policy of V4 states significantly varies among each other. At the same time, those countries with a stricter mi-gration policy, like Czechia, conducted broad-based return campaigns aimed at irregular migrants. Therefore, a trend towards reducing the share of irregular migrants in the overall stock of migrants from Ukraine, Belarus and Moldovan in V4 can be observed.
Respondents mentioned that their assessment was often based on existing es-timates combined with their expert opinions. One thing worth mentioning is the opinion (several times stated) that “irregularity” is mainly connected to irregular employment. This may indicate that labour market regulations for employment of foreigners is the main area in all V4 states that requires further improvements.
PRACE OSW 09/2012OSW REPORT 07/2014
How do you think the phenomenon of migration from Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova to your country may evolve in the next ten years? Please specify what kind of patterns and in what direction it may change? Given that you now know the opinions of other experts, please give your opinions once more in each respective box. Here, please ac-company your opinion with the most important arguments.
We demonstrate here respondents’ opinions on three different migratory patterns that have been measured in the Delphi survey – migration flows, migrants’ economic performance and the migration policy of the respective respondent’s state. There was more or less consensus among almost all re-spondents that the migration policy of their states will probably change over the next ten years. While the Polish and Hungarian8 experts indicated that it will become more liberal, Czechs forecast that it will be more selective, while the experts in Slovakia were divided over whether it will be more liberal or stricter. Migration flows to particular countries and their probable future development was perceived differently. Whereas in Czechia the respondents’
share of those who expect changes versus those who foresee stable develop-ment (of immigration from Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova) were more or less balanced, in Slovakia respondents tended to prefer changes (increase) over other possible scenarios. Similar opinions are typical of Polish respondents regarding Ukraine and Belarus, whereas in relation to Moldovans opinions are balanced (“increase” as well as “stable” development). In Hungary, re-spondents predict a future increase in Ukrainian nationals. Migrants’ eco-nomic performance will probably transform over the given horizon of ten years in Slovakia and Poland (occupation sectors changes towards more qualified positions, more students, higher wages, and more permanent mi-gration). On the other hand, the situation is expected to be more stable in Czechia and much more stable in Hungary.
What do you expect to happen (in a short-term horizon of three years) in your coun-try if visas for short-term travels for up to 90 days for Ukrainian, Belarusian and Moldovan nationals to the Schengen area are abolished. Given that you now know the opinions of other experts, please mark (with X) once more the three most likely occurrences for each nationality in the table. If you feel it is important – particularly if your opinion significantly deviates from the average – please provide arguments to justify your view.
8 Particularly for ethnic Hungarians.
PRACE OSW 09/2012OSW REPORT 07/2014 Table 3. Possible future development of migration trends in V4 states
in the case of visa abolition for Eastern European nationals
cZechia
settlement migration 11 10 10 11 10 10
More asylum claims 2 1 8 4 1 1
settlement migration 4 6 5 8 5 5
More asylum claims 0 2 2 1 0 0
other, please specify 2 0 2 1 1 1
number of
respondents (n) 15 16 14 13 13 14
PRACE OSW 09/2012OSW REPORT 07/2014
settlement migration 10 12 7 8 7 6
More asylum claims 2 2 8 4 4 4
other, please specify 0 0 0 0 0 1
number of
respondents (n) 16 14 16 14 16 14
hUngarY
settlement migration 8 6 6 5 5 5
More asylum claims 0 0 2 1 2 1
other, please specify 3 0 2 0 1 0
number of
respondents (n) 14 11 14 11 14 11
PRACE OSW 09/2012OSW REPORT 07/2014 This is one of the most important questions asked in the survey in order to in-vestigate the link between abolition of the EU visa-regime for short-term stays and migration flows. The EU abolished the visa regime for Moldovans travel-ling to the EU for short-term stays soon after the Delphi survey was completed.
Therefore, results for Moldova can in fact serve as an indicator of what may happen in the current situation when no major barriers to mobility of Moldo-van citizens in the EU exist.
In general, respondents in all V4 states see the link between introduction by the EU of a visa-free regime for short-term stays for Ukrainian, Moldovan and Belarusian nationals and the changes in migration inflows to their respective countries. They expect a small increase in migration flows but also regulari-sation of already present migrants. Czech respondents see the short-term fu-ture migratory picfu-ture as rather “homogeneous”, regardless of the migrants’
country of origin (more long-term settlement migration, growth in irregular employment and moderate inflow of labour migrants). Polish respondents expect a moderate increase in migration inflows (particularly in the case of Ukrainians) but also possible growth in irregular employment. In the case of Belarusians, more settlement emigration has been also predicted. Slovak and Hungarian experts shared similar views on all three EaP nationalities, though they also think that more Ukrainian nationals may regularise their stay and decide to settle down in their respective states due to the introduction of a visa-free regime.
How big an inflow of migrants from Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova may be if your coun-try lifts restrictions in access to labour market for those foreigners (in a short-term horizon of three years after restrictions are abolished) in comparison with present inflow? Please, while now knowing opinions of other experts, put again your opinion in each respective row – one answer for each nationality. If you feel, it is important – especially, if your opinion significantly deviates from the average, put arguments to justify your view.
PRACE OSW 09/2012OSW REPORT 07/2014
Table 4. Possible future developments of migration trends in V4 states in the case of elimination of labour market restrictions for Eastern European nationals
cZechia Ukrainians belarusians moldovans
respondents (n) 15 12 17 13 15 12
poLand Ukrainians belarusians moldovans
respondents (n) 16 16 15 13 16 14
sLoVaKia Ukrainians belarusians moldovans
respondents (n) 16 14 15 14 15 14
hUngarY Ukrainians belarusians moldovans
respondents (n) 15 12 14 11 14 11
PRACE OSW 09/2012OSW REPORT 07/2014 This question should be regarded as a “test” one. It was asked in order to check whether the respondents see a difference between the impact of visa abolition and the elimination of labour market restrictions. A genuine lifting of the bar-riers to foreigners’ access to labour markets will probably not happen soon, taking into consideration current economic problems and high unemployment rates in the EU.
Polish and Slovak respondents evaluated that in this case, potentially a higher influx of Ukrainian, Belarusian and Moldovan migrants can be expected. With regard to Ukrainians, they did not also exclude much higher inflows. Hungar-ian experts clearly differentiated between the probable future of inflows from Ukraine – here they voted for much higher numbers. The picture drawn by Czech experts is different. They mostly spread out their opinions between the categories ‘no changes’ and higher. This perspective probably reflects a situ-ation on the Czech labour market where the numbers of Ukrainians have al-ready been, to large extent, saturated (at least currently, during the global eco-nomic crisis).
The results obtained clearly indicate that labour market restrictions (not en-try/stay rules) are the main obstacles for higher migration from Eastern Eu-rope to the EU.
Can you see positive impacts related to future migration from Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova to your country? Please rank below the indicated impacts with 5 – most im-portant, 4 – imim-portant, 3 – neither imim-portant, nor unimim-portant, 2 – unimim-portant, 1 – least important.
Filling in shortages on the labour market was declared by respondents as a pos-itive impact of Ukrainian migrants in all the respective countries. Moreover, for the same reason, Belarusians in Poland and Belarusians and Moldovans in Czechia were also highly valued.
More precisely, providing new students for the educational system and a la-bour force with the requisite vocational skills is positively evaluated in rela-tion to Ukrainians and Belarusians in Poland. Bringing ethnic Poles from
More precisely, providing new students for the educational system and a la-bour force with the requisite vocational skills is positively evaluated in rela-tion to Ukrainians and Belarusians in Poland. Bringing ethnic Poles from